Frank Gehry Is Designing Facebook's New Office Building And That's Sad

Frank Gehry, the genius architect who designed the Wall Disney Concert Hall or the curve perverted one-trick pony who litters beautiful cities with Toontown buildings because he can't draw a straight line anymore (depending on your perspective), is going to be designing Facebook's new engineering office building. You don't even need to know architecture to know Gehry, he's an icon. This is a good thing because it proves Facebook has taste. But a horrible thing because its taste is so generically terrible.

Look, having Gehry design your building isn't the worst thing in the world. He's done some great work, he's one of the most famous architects ever and people really "like" his stuff. Screw the vanilla boxes! Let's live in a world on mushrooms. But just because someone with a big name decides to design deranged buildings inspired by the aftermath of a Michael Bay movie, it doesn't mean you have to like them. Or that they're any good.

Saying Gehry designs "awesome" buildings is easy. His designs are so different (from the norm, not each other) that they force you to comment. But the young and scrappy Facebook -- the one who gave David Choe FB stock for tagging up its walls -- probably wouldn't have done this (they couldn't have afforded it, first of all) because it's just so damn typical of a big public company trying to fake cool. Asking Gehry to design their latest building is the classic no-taste-masked-as-taste, socially accepted anti-establishment move.

Here's what the building looks like. In the middle of Menlo Park, where Gehry doesn't exactly have to tango with historic buildings and mind a cityscape, it doesn't look half bad. It looks carefully restrained and not like steel and glass vomit. Trees on the roof! So green! Here's what Facebook has to say:

It will be a large, one room building that somewhat resembles a warehouse. Just like we do now, everyone will sit out in the open with desks that can be quickly shuffled around as teams form and break apart around projects. There will be cafes and lots of micro-kitchens with snacks so that you never have to go hungry. And we'll fill the building with break-away spaces with couches and whiteboards to make getting away from your desk easy.

What's really funny is people making negative comments about a project that is not theirs, that they are not paying for, and probably will never work in. Sure sure, saying "You have a face like a dolphin's butt" will be greeted with more chuckles than saying "You look nice today". Its human nature to laugh at the lower levels of humor, and yawn at genuinely kind comments. But this article is simply juvenile and unnecessary.

I'm no Gehry apologist, and as you note, the building looks pretty good. Maybe you are the one getting hung up on the Gehry name, and should let the building speak for itself. That's true taste, rather than posturing. Remember, the coolest thing to do these days is criticize Gehry, not hire him.

That Fb are working to "buy taste" with this move may be true. I disagree with your dismissal of Gehry's work.

The Condé Nast cafeteria was designed by Gehry. It seats about 200 people in a fairly compact space. Near capacity, there can be a hundred simultaneous discussions taking place. The curved walls of glass and perforated metal make it possible to actually have these individual conversations. The accoustic quality of the room invites relaxed discussion. This is smart business.

I suffer from a medical condition known as "being old and deaf." In most open spaces -- cafeterias, conference rooms, restaurants -- I have problems working out the conversation through the background noise. Gehry's Times Square cafeteria deflects and dissipates this cacophony and makes lunch meetings and other conversations not just possible, but pleasant. I happen to be familiar with this work of Gehry's; it would be surprising to find his other works didn't also have similar qualities beyond purely visual aesthetics.

What you call the sameness of his work, I'd consider his signature. It's apparent plenty of thoughtful, utilitarian design goes into creating these signatures.

Like a Steely Dan track, you can generally recognize its creator quickly. You may not like it, and you may consider it derrivative of earlier tracks. That doesn't take away from the amount of thought, skill and craft that's gone into its creation.

I have had a similar feelings when a famous painter from my country had made a triangle and a dot during an exhibition and the visitors ("the elite connoiseurs") started to find meaning and the philosophy of entire world in that painting. The f***** idiots called that a master piece.

I like Gehry's and his office's work, their projects are always interesting and well thought out. His recent apartment project in New York is innovative, but (yes old cliche, praise first then - but) he is an establishment Architect, or I guess one of the dozen 'Starchitects' out there. It would have been nice for them to chose a up and coming Architecture firm rather than one I have been reading praise about for 20 years. Firms like Rex, Fat or Big would have been a more progressive choice, they all have a proven track record, but are contemporaries of Facebook rather than a Father / Grandfather.

Your analysis of Gehry is incredibly unfounded (unjustified in the text at least) considering how harsh it is. I am not saying that they are in the same league but I am sure people said the same thing about Gaudi. How about more analysis rather than name calling to get attention for a story?

Only logged in users may vote for comments!

Get Permalink

Trending Stories Right Now

I'm the first to admit that my YouTube viewing habits are a little limited. I enjoy film analysis (Movies with Mikey, Every Frame A Painting - RIP), some sciency stuff like minutephysics and the International Space Station livesteam, and I force everyone who comes into my home to experience Bondi Hipsters' Pipi Dance.
But you mob. These are your top 10 most watched YouTube videos of 2017, and I'm...I'm kind of impressed.

We all have incredibly petty hills to die on when it comes to the series we love. Paul McGann is the best Doctor. Deep Space Nine is better than The Next Generation. Superior Spider-Man was good. Here is my pettiest hill, though it's one I'm still prepared to die on. Star Wars' A-Wings are for losers, and I am disproportionately mad they're in The Last Jedi.